God knows, they have plenty of renders around some reminding more of B2 some borrowing more from TU160. What we know for sure is that it will be flying or blended wing design, which are made to operate at subsonic speeds.

Stay tuned on the subsonic flying wing idea using a NK-32 variant as powerplants and with an electronic suite developped by KRET on the basis of the PAK FA's one. That's basically all which is known for now about the PAK DA

eehnie wrote:The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

eehnie wrote:The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959, only some version of previous designs. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The US follows their own military strategies, that sometimes are different, and not always are the best option. I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it becomes very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

eehnie wrote:The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The US follows their own military strategies, that sometimes are different, and not always are the best option. I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it will be very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

Why do you think building supersonic bomber takes more time to develop compared to subsonic one? As an engineer i find this logic very weird. And how exacly subsonic equals less advanced than supersonic. Its just perspective of approach. Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

eehnie wrote:The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

Well B2 is subsonic, so will be Northrop Grumman B-21. Their speed might be subsonic, but that allowed them other advantages like longer range, bigger payloads and lesser signature in both radio and IR spectrum. Should reduce operational costs too at least in theory. Anyways PAK-DAs has main goal to replace Tu-95 which is subsonic, probably partially TU22M but supersonic bomber roles will be, at least we hope, performed by new built TU160M2.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The US follows their own military strategies, that sometimes are different, and not always are the best option. I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it will be very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

Why do you think building supersonic bomber takes more time to develop compared to subsonic one? As an engineer i find this logic very weird. And how exacly subsonic equals less advanced than supersonic. Its just perspective of approach. Speed was favoured during Cold War for high and low lvl air defence penetration, today speed wont rly help you much aganist integrated air defence systems.

Then you are not the alone engineer here. To build a supersonic bomber would take to Russia, only the necessary time to restart the production of their current supersonic bombers. Not many time. If this project needs about a decade of research and development is because they are trying new technologies (which I do not know, but which I expect).

I do not agree about your point about speed. Speed is used as a value for self-defense many times, and many times becomes a competitive advantage that helps to survive. Higher speed helps to avoid succesfully an increasing number of attacks.

The competitive advantage of the subsonic B-2 of the US has been based in a capability of hidding to radars. When this hability gets surpased by new detecting technologies, the B-2 becomes something about as vulnerable as an Il-76, and becomes severely outdated. A high speed supersonic bomber can become surpased in speed by new guns, but it keeps always its advantage over the guns that was able to avoid before. This is why I prefer high speed supersonic strategic bombers to subsonic based on other competitive advantages.

Which technological improvements for the Tu-PAK-DA would impress you enough after 10 years of research and development to accept a downgrade from the current Tu-160 in critical features like speed?

For a strategic bomber speed is not as important as most seem to think.

Assuming it will be used for a WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic bomber has flown half way around the world to a launch position for its missiles the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already hit the enemy country a few hours before so there likely wont be any interceptors or SAMs opposing them when they launch long range subsonic cruise missiles or high speed hypersonic missiles to deal with what is left.

Speed just makes things more expensive and effects performance.

Of course as mentioned a flying wing needs a tail... a horizontal tail at least because as a plane moves from subsonic to supersonic the centre of gravity will shift so it needs lots of ability to use tail surfaces to change trim to maintain forward flight.

A butterfly tail like the YF-23 would be enough however and a flying wing would offer very low drag high volume for long range high speed flight.

In my opinion the cheapest lowest cost option would be the Tu-160M for supersonic strategic bomber that could be useful for conventional attacks too, and the PAKDA being a flying tailed bomber with super cruise capabilities.

Very few supersonic aircraft are designed to be supersonic all the way... even the Tu-160 would fly high subsonic cruise to and from the target area with a supersonic dash over the danger zone to minimise exposure to enemy air defences... a replacement for the Bear that could supercruise at mach 1.3 or 1.5 would dramatically reduce flight times to target area and make interception actually very tricky as most fighters would need full AB to intercept such a target.

Supercruising flying wing would be very cost effective for now but offer potential for future variable cycle jet engines to combine turbojet and turbofan and scramjet performance to allow much higher speeds to be achieved later on when needed.

Obviously all the problems of materials and heat need to be worked on, and of course scramjets themselves but they could fly a supercruising bomber very soon with the right engines... and would be relatively cheap to buy and operate. ....a hypersonic bomber would take two decades and would be very expensive.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

GarryB wrote:For a strategic bomber speed is not as important as most seem to think.

Assuming it will be used for a WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic bomber has flown half way around the world to a launch position for its missiles the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already hit the enemy country a few hours before so there likely wont be any interceptors or SAMs opposing them when they launch long range subsonic cruise missiles or high speed hypersonic missiles to deal with what is left.

Speed just makes things more expensive and effects performance.

Of course as mentioned a flying wing needs a tail... a horizontal tail at least because as a plane moves from subsonic to supersonic the centre of gravity will shift so it needs lots of ability to use tail surfaces to change trim to maintain forward flight.

A butterfly tail like the YF-23 would be enough however and a flying wing would offer very low drag high volume for long range high speed flight.

In my opinion the cheapest lowest cost option would be the Tu-160M for supersonic strategic bomber that could be useful for conventional attacks too, and the PAKDA being a flying tailed bomber with super cruise capabilities.

Very few supersonic aircraft are designed to be supersonic all the way... even the Tu-160 would fly high subsonic cruise to and from the target area with a supersonic dash over the danger zone to minimise exposure to enemy air defences... a replacement for the Bear that could supercruise at mach 1.3 or 1.5 would dramatically reduce flight times to target area and make interception actually very tricky as most fighters would need full AB to intercept such a target.

Supercruising flying wing would be very cost effective for now but offer potential for future variable cycle jet engines to combine turbojet and turbofan and scramjet performance to allow much higher speeds to be achieved later on when needed.

Obviously all the problems of materials and heat need to be worked on, and of course scramjets themselves but they could fly a supercruising bomber very soon with the right engines... and would be relatively cheap to buy and operate. ....a hypersonic bomber would take two decades and would be very expensive.

Why do you asume that will not be interceptors or SAMs surviving the first attack? It seems a weak asumption.

Also the current strategic bombers are being used in conflicts where ICBMs are not being used. In fact strategic bombers never have been used in a war with ICBMs, then the most likely use of them is in conflicts where ICBMs have not been used.

MOSCOW, 2 Mar — RIA Novosti. The flights of the upgraded strategic bomber Tu-160 is scheduled to start by 2019, said on Wednesday the commander of the aerospace defence forces of Russia Colonel-General Victor Bondaryev."The resumption of production of strategic bombers Tu-160 is by the decree of the President of Russia. And I think that by 2019 this modernized aircraft will start flying," said Bondarev at a meeting on the development of Russian military aviation.The decision to resume production of the Tu-160 was received by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on the proposal of the Ministry of defense in may 2015. Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov said in February 2016 that works to restore the production of this aircraft attracted a huge cooperation

GarryB wrote:For a strategic bomber speed is not as important as most seem to think.

Assuming it will be used for a WWIII scenario by the time a subsonic bomber has flown half way around the world to a launch position for its missiles the ICBMs and SLBMs will have already hit the enemy country a few hours before so there likely wont be any interceptors or SAMs opposing them when they launch long range subsonic cruise missiles or high speed hypersonic missiles to deal with what is left.

Speed just makes things more expensive and effects performance.

Of course as mentioned a flying wing needs a tail... a horizontal tail at least because as a plane moves from subsonic to supersonic the centre of gravity will shift so it needs lots of ability to use tail surfaces to change trim to maintain forward flight.

A butterfly tail like the YF-23 would be enough however and a flying wing would offer very low drag high volume for long range high speed flight.

In my opinion the cheapest lowest cost option would be the Tu-160M for supersonic strategic bomber that could be useful for conventional attacks too, and the PAKDA being a flying tailed bomber with super cruise capabilities.

Very few supersonic aircraft are designed to be supersonic all the way... even the Tu-160 would fly high subsonic cruise to and from the target area with a supersonic dash over the danger zone to minimise exposure to enemy air defences... a replacement for the Bear that could supercruise at mach 1.3 or 1.5 would dramatically reduce flight times to target area and make interception actually very tricky as most fighters would need full AB to intercept such a target.

Supercruising flying wing would be very cost effective for now but offer potential for future variable cycle jet engines to combine turbojet and turbofan and scramjet performance to allow much higher speeds to be achieved later on when needed.

Obviously all the problems of materials and heat need to be worked on, and of course scramjets themselves but they could fly a supercruising bomber very soon with the right engines... and would be relatively cheap to buy and operate. ....a hypersonic bomber would take two decades and would be very expensive.

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

I dearly hope that PAK-DA is not a faster B-2, as when it comes into service, it will already be obsolete. The B-2 is no strategic bomber, it was mainly designed to carry nuclear bombs to drop on huge mobile Warsaw Pact formations. In a sense, it was a low-observable, reusable, retargetable, sub-munition-carrying cruise missile. Even more so that the B-2 had to be redesigned for billions of dollars, to be modified for low level flight because, surprise, surprise, stealth is not a solution to the problems posed by today's and tomorrow's IADS.

Future is in hypersonic, which is why I was relieved when Russia announced plans for Tu-160M2, and the "shifting back" of the PAK-DA.

PAK-DA will be very very very interesting, because the way it is now, strategic nuclear air forces are about to become completely useless, PAK-DA should put them on the map again.

Mach 7.5 engine? what about that GarryB in your "too expensive" for Russia to go forhypersonic flight.

Did you even read the article?

Having a Hydrogen powered scramjet that produces positive thrust at Mach 7.5 is one thing... having that same engine installed on an actual bomber and producing enough positive thrust to keep the actual bomber in flight at mach 7.4 is something else. Converting the aircraft to hydrogen fuel alone would be complicated and expensive.

The people need to open the mid to very significant improvements from the Tu-160 to the Tu-PAK-DA. We will see all the technological improvements of 40 years in a single step.

But you also need to be realistic, the heat barrier needs to be addressed... having a scramjet engine is just the first step... you need new materials that will withstand an entire operational career of heating to thousands of degrees every flight... for a missile that is no problem because they only need to withstand that heat for an hour at most and then they will be destroyed... an aircraft needs to withstand those temperatures over and over again for hours at a time.

I think the best we can expect is a rocket scramjet powered cruise missile that is say 5 tons at launch that starts by being launched at medium to high altitude 5,000km from the target. Once launched its rocket will accelerate it to high subsonic speed but more importantly will allow it to climb to high altitude where the ramjet will take over and long range cruise wings will deploy.

As it burns it large store of fuel it will get faster and accelerate to transsonic and then supersonic speeds and when it is say 2,000km from the target it could drop its large cruise wings and its cluster of four external fuel tanks which would now be empty and it can go to full throttle on its scramjet and rapidly accelerate to mach 7 or so as it approaches enemy territory. Reduced weight and reduced drag should greatly improve acceleration at this point and the sudden increase in speed will make interception by F-15 or F-35 or even F-22 pointless as none of them could hope to intercept a mach 7 target.

When your cruise missiles are hypersonic there is no benefit to having bombers also hypersonic, though having hypersonic interceptors would be useful and worth developing too.

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Supercuising would be an enormous leap forward for bombers... it would dramatically increase flight performance without the increased cost and range reduction of having to use ABs for supersonic speed. Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

Actually judging by reports from last few years PAK-DA will be subsonic. Flying wing designs cant be super/hypersonic by default anyways.

I agree, though the subsonic limitation is because they don't have tail surfaces to deal with cg changes at transonic speeds so the tailed flying wing models shown could be supersonic... but their leading edge sweep is not sharp enough for hypersonic speeds...

Is it PAK-DA ?

I doubt the design is even finalised yet.

Most common render tho is this one and alike:

That is not an artists design, that is the T-4MS and was rejected in favour of the Tu-160 design.

This one comes from the Tu-4MS project.

Close. It is the T-4MS design... a Sukhoi design.

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/t/4/ms/t4ms_e.htm

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

Second, a conservative cheap subsonic or super cruising flying wing bomber, together with a sophisticated supersonic evolution of the Tu-160M2 sounds pretty good to me... capable, flexible, and affordable. With subsonic stealthy cruise missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles these bombers will be excellent defenders of Russia for decades to come.

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

Money is currently a bit tight, but I think you are underestimating the Russians... they don't need a hypersonic first strike bomber... they need one they can afford to put into service in large enough numbers to be an effective deterrent. Actions in Syria suggest they might even use them operationally in a conventional role.

We can not be talking seriously about the new Tu-PAK-DA having lower performance and capabilities than the current Tu-160. Russia has not designed a subsonic strategic bomber since 1959, only some version of previous designs. Russia is designing supersonic strategic bombers even before this data. I do not expect Russia returning back to subsonic strategic bombers after 65 years (in 2024).

The Tu-160 does not fly its entire mission to the continental US at supersonic speed... it would fly most of the way subsonic and have a 2,000km dash over the north pole to deploy subsonic cruise missiles and then a long subsonic flight home.

Speed it not its key feature. Even at full speed... mach 2 it would have to fly at high altitude and would be detectable from very long range by Patriot batteries... its key advantage is that it can avoid major SAM and radar positions and launch its 5,000km range cruise missiles from undefended air space... a supersonic dash makes it safer from any F-22s or F-15s loitering in the area... if they are anywhere near there.

If they design the PAK DA to supercruise it will get to its launch position faster than the Tu-160, but if it is subsonic that means they can give it much longer range and much larger internal weapons bay to carry rather more weapons and more bulky weapons like hypersonic missiles with external fuel tanks.

The Pak DA wont be faster than Tu-160, but it should have different advantages like a much larger conventional weapons payload... say 4 or 6 FOABS or 4 FAB-9000s or FAB-5000s. It can be stealthier and have radar sensor panels that cover 360 degrees with new photonic radars... it could be its own AWACS and JSTARS...

The new Tu-160M2 might supercruise and therefore be much harder to intercept by conventional interceptors and it might operate at much higher speed...

I have never been too impressed with the B-2 bomber, because when its radar hidding capabilities be surpased it becomes very very vulnerable and as consequence, severely outdated.

I agree but in its primary role a strategic bomber will be entering enemy airspace a few hours after that airspace has been devastated by ICBM and SLBM nuclear missile attack so any defences will be in disarray. Being able to attack your targets from a 5,000km standoff range also makes the mission much easier.

Why do you asume that will not be interceptors or SAMs surviving the first attack? It seems a weak asumption.

Because as it is there are not that many major SAM systems covering the US and even less in Canada... how many operational air bases would Russia need to target to ensure nothing is airborne to stop them?

Now ask yourself that SLBMs might be targeting...

Also the current strategic bombers are being used in conflicts where ICBMs are not being used. In fact strategic bombers never have been used in a war with ICBMs, then the most likely use of them is in conflicts where ICBMs have not been used.

Strategic bombers need to be designed first and foremost for their primary strategic role. Alternative conventional roles might be value added extras but the core role is strategic cruise missile carrier.

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

Strategic bombers are not first strike weapons... if you need fast then ICBM and SLBM are fast. Strategic bombers approach the edge of the enemies air space and launch 5,000km range cruise missiles to destroy population areas and anything that might have survived the first strikes by ballistic missiles.

the PAK DA will be subsonic or super cruising, but will carry hypersonic cruise missiles the enemies air defences wont be able to intercept.

To suggest such an aircraft will be obsolete is amusing when over the last few months subsonic Bear aircraft have successfully attacked ground targets with subsonic cruise missiles without being shot down... the difference is that the PAK DA should be able to carry more weapons further.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

Strategic bombers are not first strike weapons... if you need fast then ICBM and SLBM are fast. Strategic bombers approach the edge of the enemies air space and launch 5,000km range cruise missiles to destroy population areas and anything that might have survived the first strikes by ballistic missiles.

the PAK DA will be subsonic or super cruising, but will carry hypersonic cruise missiles the enemies air defences wont be able to intercept.

To suggest such an aircraft will be obsolete is amusing when over the last few months subsonic Bear aircraft have successfully attacked ground targets with subsonic cruise missiles without being shot down... the difference is that the PAK DA should be able to carry more weapons further.

Oh I will, and they understand perfectly.

The Americans know that the B-2 and the B-21 are impotent against current Russian IADS and are currently working on ways around it, hypersonic anyone?

Now, America has nothing close to Russian IADS, nothing, but that can change very quickly given the time it will take for Russia to develop such expensive aircraft, and end up making the exact same mistake.

The aircraft you describe would be a complete step backward for the US.

Btw, the real American strategic bomber is the B-52H, the only aerial platform the U.S. has that carries 2k+ km nuclear cruise missiles. The B-1(b), B-2,B-21 were never replacements for it.

Funny how you cut off the rest of my post where I mentioned that about the B-2.

It has been mentioned the PAKDA is a subsonic flying wing type with new engines based on the NK-32 already, so we really need to ask ourselves what are their needs.

High speed?

No. the Tu-160 is already high speed, and this aircraft is replacing the Tu-95 and Tu-22M3, so speed is not important. Large conventional weapon load capacity is important because the new Tu-160 wont be able to carry bombs, so this will be a bomber and a cruise missile carrier.

https://i36.servimg.com/u/f36/15/11/39/27/top10.jpg

This is a modification I made to a boring flying wing B-2ski posted on this forum... perhaps smaller tail surfaces like the PAK FA vertical tail surfaces, in addition perhaps to thrust vector control to allow super cruising flight performance by changing trim angle.

this new bomber could be a heavy bomb truck for use in conventional conflicts... it might have an enormous wing span for higher altitude operations and GLONASS guided bombs and munitions...

Edit:

The Americans know that the B-2 and the B-21 are impotent against current Russian IADS and are currently working on ways around it, hypersonic anyone?

Except that they are not... only a serious fanboi would expect any IADS to survive a full scale nuclear attack... such things wont recover in a few hours or days... on either side.

The value of the strategic bomber force is not that it strikes first because it is so fast... it is because you can deploy it to its launch positions in a visible way to show your enemy you mean business, but also in a way that they can be called back... and also that they can be used in conventional conflicts as shown recently by Russia and Syria and since the end of WWII by the US all over the world.

Now, America has nothing close to Russian IADS, nothing, but that can change very quickly given the time it will take for Russia to develop such expensive aircraft, and end up making the exact same mistake.

It was largely the enormous cost of the IADs the Soviets developed to deal with NATO cruise missiles that bankrupted them... I would love to see the US spend money on the same thing... they would not be able to afford it because theirs would be gold plated.

Btw, the real American strategic bomber is the B-52H, the only aerial platform the U.S. has that carries 2k+ km nuclear cruise missiles. The B-1(b), B-2,B-21 were never replacements for it.

The B-1B and B-2 were strategic bombers, the B-52 was a conventional bomber and a strategic cruise missile carrier... all were developed with the intention of attacking the soviet union and like the Tu-160 ended up too expensive to completely replace the older cheaper aircraft.

Funny how you cut off the rest of my post where I mentioned that about the B-2.

What?

I cut off nothing. I just followed the forum rules and only quoted the parts of your post that I was replying to rather than quote your entire post.

Very simply stand off cruise missile carriers don't need to be fast, and their stealth is maximised when they don't get within 5,000km of the target. When the cruise missile is slow but stealthy and flys low, or flys high and at hypersonic speeds then you have all the advantages of both technologys without the enormous costs.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

In fact this TSAGi model posted previously on this thread shows exactly what I mean by a tailed flying wing... there would be only one reason for a tail on a flying wing and that is to break the sound barrier...

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Do not expect small changes. We will see very important improvements. Hipersonic speed? Maybe.

Supercuising would be an enormous leap forward for bombers... it would dramatically increase flight performance without the increased cost and range reduction of having to use ABs for supersonic speed. Most current and projected non Russian interceptors would have difficulty intercepting a mach 1.6 bomber as they would have to use full AB to keep up which burns through fuel rapidly.

I will remember this comment, the bolded part when you talk about the "nonsense" of supersonic transport in relation to the Il-PAK-TA.

GarryB wrote:

In the US would be very happy if this is true. After 40 years Russia going one step back...

First of all who cares what the US thinks.

...

Time is THE most important factor for a strategic bomber, speed is very much a factor in time.

You need to tell this to the Americans then because they have gone backwards two times... with the B-1B being rather slower and smaller than the B-1, and the B-2 and now B-21 being slower still.

You seem to care not, until you care, even in the same comment.

GarryB wrote:

I think you are getting too short in your expectation. Do you think Russia needs about a decade of research and development to make a subsonic strategic bomber?

Money is currently a bit tight, but I think you are underestimating the Russians... they don't need a hypersonic first strike bomber... they need one they can afford to put into service in large enough numbers to be an effective deterrent. Actions in Syria suggest they might even use them operationally in a conventional role.

High speed is also useful for conventional roles. Not only for use with nuclear weapons.

The money is a relative question here. No-one defending high speed strategy bombers is talking about a concrete timeline. No-one would care too much about to have them in 2024 or 2027, or even 2030. The question is to solve the concept, and for it, it is necessary to begin and to keep an affordable effort until needed.

The problem for the people like me defending this effort is to begin not the work. The problem is to see the tight money distracted to other solutions that are one step back of the Tu-160 and that would add nothing significant to the Russian Armed Forces.

It is however an example of a flying wing design that does not copy the B-2 and would have potential for supersonic flight as it has rear mounted control surfaces that would allow the aircraft to adapt its cg as it becomes supersonic.

For early fighter aircraft the secret was called the all moving horizontal tail surface... sometimes called a taleron.

Of course there is no reason why the same trim adjustments could not be made with thrust vectoring engine nozzles.

The whole point being to make a strategic bomber supersonic like the Tu-160 you need four huge and very powerful engines.

To make a subsonic flying wing you could probably get away with two NK32 based engines, leaving rather more internal space for weapons or fuel.

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

An aircraft moving from subsonic to supersonic flight has a significant shift in centre of gravity. A flying wing has no horizontal tail surfaces to compensate for such a shift and would yaw and stall.

In comparison a conventional supersonic fighter will just apply force via its horizontal tail surface to keep the wings aligned with the supersonic air flow and continue to fly.

A Flying wing design is a very low drag configuration, but its obvious problem would be wing angle... a B-2 shape is subsonic... to get it to supercruise you would need more wing sweep and likely vectored thrust engines to maintain control.

I will remember this comment, the bolded part when you talk about the "nonsense" of supersonic transport in relation to the Il-PAK-TA.

An aircraft does not just fly any speed based on the throttle setting. Most modern interceptors require AB to get supersonic and most need AB to remain supersonic, though a few exceptions exist.

For an armed F-16 it can either fly in dry thrust which means it will be subsonic, where is has a reasonable flight range, or it can go supersonic and burn up most of its fuel very rapidly.

A supercruising bomber requires the latter which would greatly reduce the performance of most fighters... that is why the US thinks it is so wonderful for the F-22 to do it.

Look at any human sprinter... they are not all huge heavy muscle guys... it is not just about power... it is about power to weight ratio... the strongest is not the fastest... the strongest lightest person has the advantage.

A transports role is not to be fast... it is to carry weight over distance. Adding a speed requirement makes it worse in other areas and for no benefit because even a Mach 1.6 transport aircraft will be an easy kill for any SAM or F-22 or PAK FA.

You seem to care not, until you care, even in the same comment.

I don't care what they think. What they do is relevant, what they think is not.

The problem is to see the tight money distracted to other solutions that are one step back of the Tu-160 and that would add nothing significant to the Russian Armed Forces.

The Tu-160 is perfectly capable... its only problem is that they only made about 30 of them and half were lost to the Ukraine.

It is no cheap to operate so an engine upgrade to improve performance and reduce operating costs will benefit all aircraft of the type, but the new engine developed for the PAK DA will make the latter aircraft as cheap to operate as the Bear, but as effective as the Blackjack.

_________________“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

I dont care whether you knew about them or not - what they do is to show your assumption is wrong. So it has plenty of bearing. Having tails on flying wings =/= that they are then magically supersonic and ignore all the other million considerations.

PAK-DA will be subsonic. Period. Should be extra obvious now with the Tu-160M2...

2; Both Senior Peg and Senior Ice had tails. Ice lost it but Peg kept it. They were both subsonic, always. So you are writing complete and utter nonsense.

I didn't know anything about either project when discussing supercruising flying wing designs, so how can anything related to those projects have any bearing on what I wrote?

I dont care whether you knew about them or not - what they do is to show your assumption is wrong. So it has plenty of bearing. Having tails on flying wings =/= that they are then magically supersonic and ignore all the other million considerations.

PAK-DA will be subsonic. Period. Should be extra obvious now with the Tu-160M2...

You really should ease up on your brow beating tone. You come off looking like an idiot. It's not like your posts are full ofuseful technical detail and arguments.